A surveillance van or "critical response vehicle". (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin has issued a letter asking elected leaders in Milwaukee to temper the acquisition and use of surveillance technologies by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). On Thursday evening, the police department went before the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) to push for the use of facial recognition technology. This, along with the common council’s recent approval of drone usage by the MPD, has spurred the ACLU to call for a two-year pause on the adoption of new surveillance technologies, and craft frameworks to regulate the technology MPD already has “with meaningful opportunities for community input.” 

Although it acknowledges that many on the council and within MPD “care deeply about the safety and well-being of our city,” the ACLU’s letter also warns that “history has shown time and again, authoritarianism does not always arrive with flashing lights and villainous speeches — it often comes wrapped in routine procedure, paperwork, and people ‘just doing their jobs.’” 

“We are already seeing how surveillance technology is being weaponized in real time,” the ACLU continued, citing data-gathering, automatic license plate readers, artificial intelligence (AI), and other tools that are used to “target and detain individuals.” 

The MPD has long denied that it uses facial recognition technology. As part of an investigation into surveillance technologies which the department obtained ahead of the 2020 Democratic National Convention (DNC), Wisconsin Examiner reviewed “investment justification” records from the state’s Homeland Security Council which suggested that the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center — a homeland security-focused aspect of the MPD’s intel-gathering Fusion Center — utilized Clear facial recognition technology. It was described as a “mobile device” that would allow police to “conduct timely identification of individuals in the field to prevent terrorist attack.” 

By contrast, MPD PowerPoint presentations prepared for the April 17 FPC meeting openly advertise the use of facial recognition. The PowerPoint details two examples of arrests made using facial recognition software. One “case study” from March 2024 involved a fatal gun violence incident where the suspects fled. The PowerPoint said that they were later seen at a gas station, and that facial recognition software provided leads to both suspects. Noting that “facial recognition results are advisory in nature and are to be treated as investigative leads only,” the PowerPoint states that a Department of Corrections agent confirmed the software’s results, leading to arrests the next morning. 

One of the PowerPoint slides shows in-custody photographs of the arrested men above pictures of them masked in a gas station. The slides showed that the facial recognition software had a “similarity” rating of 99.7% for one man, and 98.1% for another. Both men are waiting for a trial. The other case study focused on a sexual assault incident involving a gun. Like the other example, surveillance footage of the suspect from a gas station helped lead to the arrest. MPD sent out a facial recognition request to local agencies. It was answered by the Wauwatosa Police Department, which returned two pictures of the same individual. The pictures had similarity ratings of 99.1% and 98.9% respectively. The arrested man was sentenced to 20 years in prison. 

The PowerPoint presentation lists 14 cases from the North and South Sides of Milwaukee. It states that MPD “would be diligent in balancing the need for effective, accurate investigations and the need to respect the privacy of others,” and that facial recognition does not establish probable cause to arrest someone or obtain a warrant. “It may generate investigative leads through a combination of automated biometric comparisons and human analysis,” the PowerPoint states. “Corroborating information must be developed through additional investigation.” 

A PowerPoint presentation detailing the Milwaukee PD’s plans for facial recognition software.

MPD has reviewed procedures for the technology’s use nationwide, and stated that “oversight of the system will consist of an audit report showing information requested, accessed, searched, or disseminated.” All requests for facial recognition must be approved by a supervisor, and the department will keep a log of each search and the type of crime involved. Biometrica is the chosen facial recognition vendor. The PowerPoint states that the company has worked with the NAACP and the ACLU to provide anti-bias training for users of the software. 

The reassurances, however, do little to quell the concerns of privacy advocates. In their letter to the MPD and common council, the ACLU of Wisconsin highlighted ongoing immigrant roundups by  the Trump administration, and the deportation of Milwaukee residents to a notorious maximum security terrorism prison in El Salvador. “It is being used to monitor and prosecute political protesters, people seeking reproductive health care, LGBTQ+ individuals, and doctors trying to provide care,” the letter states. “These are not projections — these are present-day realities carried out by bad actors within the federal government and local jurisdictions.” 

The ACLU letter warns, “while we trust that our local leaders and police officers have good intentions, history reminds us how quickly larger systems can override those intentions.” 

In recent years MPD has expanded its network of surveillance cameras and other activities such as its phone surveillance operations remain shrouded in secrecy. MPD has also built up its social media surveillance footprint using AI-powered software, after downplaying the very existence of those activities in years past. 

“Data collected in Milwaukee does not stay in Milwaukee,” the ACLU states. “Once it enters a federal pipeline, it can be accessed, shared, and used in ways we cannot predict — or stop. That’s why now, more than ever, we must choose restraint. The rule of law at the federal level is unraveling before our eyes.”

The same set of concerns came up during a March 20 FPC meeting, where commissioners discussed the MPD’s use of drones and facial recognition technology. Police officials claimed that complaints about law enforcement using drones lagged behind the rate of agencies acquiring the technology, suggesting that the public approves. Police officials said that MPD’s “Airborne Assessment Team,” which is attached to the department’s Specialized Patrol Division, would help increase situational awareness, de-escalate dangerous situations, aid search-and-rescue, help manage major events and offer unique opportunities to “positively engage” with the community. In protest situations, drones would allow MPD to monitor an area while not physically placing officers nearby, whose presence could trigger an escalation among the protest crowd. 

MPD said that its drones do not have facial recognition capabilities. Still, the growth of MPD’s surveillance powers have worried some community members. Commissioner Bree Spencer said during the meeting that it would be nice for a community-based tech advisory board to be established to help review MPD’s surveillance requests. Spencer said that nationwide and historically, it’s not unheard-of for law enforcement surveillance programs to get out of hand. 

“I get it for water rescue, I’m very worried about things like protests,” said Spencer. “I think for very good reason. Our federal government is doing some very funky things right now with protesters. So I get what you’re saying, and I see in the SOP that you’re like, ‘We’re not going to do that.’ I don’t know if that’s sufficient in terms of a protection, particularly for people who are skeptical about the use of these technologies.”

Police officials said that drones are a crowd management tool, and that during the Republican National Convention (RNC) they helped monitor protest movements to ensure opposing groups didn’t come into contact with one another. Spencer reiterated, “I think I just worry about the cost to individual civil rights and, like, how that’s going to just keep growing in our society…I wish the public had more input into whether or not the use of this type of technology is happening here. Talking to the community is not the same as letting them have a decision about whether or not they want drones in their city being run by police.” 

MPD spokespeople said the department based its drone usage procedures on best practice guidance from the ACLU, and that the department is “very late” to the drone game. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, for example, officially announced its drone program in 2021. 

Ahead of the DNC nearly five years ago, the MPD acquired large white vans called “critical response vehicles”, which are also attached to the Specialized Patrol Division and came equipped with their own tethered aerial drones. Wisconsin Examiner found that the sheriff’s drones were used to monitor police accountability protests, with the number of flights dropping significantly once the protests subsided. 

In its letter Thursday, the ACLU stressed that police abuse of surveillance “is not ancient history” but rather “it’s living memory for many in our city.” Some may remember the reign of police chief Harold Breier, who surveilled civil rights activists, LGBTQ+ communities, and Black Milwaukeeans. “And those who carried out that surveillance often believed they were ‘just doing their jobs.’” The ACLU’s letter questions what a personality like Chief Breier would do with today’s surveillance powers. 

“We’re not calling for a ban,” the letter states. Instead, the ACLU calls for a  two-year pause on acquiring new surveillance technologies, especially facial recognition technology, “while we assess the potential risks.” In the meantime, the letter urges city leaders to “pass a framework for regulating existing surveillance technology, such as adopting a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance to bring accountability to these decisions before it’s too late.”

The decision to mandate video cameras and monitors on school buses to allow improved detection of students at stops, effective November 2027, dates back to a 2020 Transport Canada’s Task Force on School Bus Safety. And while the so-called perimeter visibility systems are expected to improve school bus safety, questions remain.

Patricia Turner, territory manager for school bus video manufacturer Gatekeeper-Systems, was a member of the Task Force created by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. The goal was to review safety standards and operations inside and outside school buses.

Additional members included different levels of government, manufacturers, school boards, bus operators, labor unions and safety associations.

“We all came together to discuss what could be put on school buses to assist in keeping children safer,” she said, adding that the Task Force began with bi-weekly virtual meetings that turned into monthly meetings. “We were discussing what technology is out there that can help keep children safe.”

By February 2020, the Task Force released a report, Strengthening School Bus Safety in Canada, that identified four ways to improve school bus safety: Infraction cameras, extended stop signal arms, exterior 360 cameras, and automatic emergency braking.

While the Task Force report did not recommend three-point seatbelts, it recognized “that seatbelts can provide an additional layer of safety on school buses in certain rare but severe collision scenarios,” the report states. “As such, it would be prudent to continue working through the considerations associated with seatbelt installation and use (e.g. consequences of misuse, emergency evacuations, liability) and to encourage manufacturers to develop additional occupant protection features to complement the school bus design, such as energy-absorbing side structure padding and inflatable ‘curtain’ airbags.”

Turner explained that the Task Force selected Gatekeeper as a pilot project supplier for testing perimeter visibility systems initiative in April 2021. The company installed 360 Surround Vision and Student Protector systems on school buses in British Columbia and Ontario.

Transport Canada announced Feb. 3 that, “the Government of Canada is mandating perimeter visibility systems as a new feature to improve school bus safety,” a press release states. “These systems help drivers detect children around the bus while it is stopped or traveling slowly.”

The statement continues, “This technology offers enhanced visibility beyond what mirrors alone can provide.”

Starting in November 2027, all new school buses are to be equipped with perimeter visibility systems with the option to install stop-arm infraction cameras. Canada becomes the first country to require new school buses to be fitted with cameras.

Turner explained that Gatekeeper’s 360 Surround Vision System consists of four high-definition, wide-angle external cameras mounted strategically around the school bus—front, back, left and right. These cameras capture and stitch together real-time, panoramic video, giving drivers a comprehensive, live view of the vehicle’s perimeter to eliminate blind spots. While the Transport Canada mandate does not require camera systems to include recording capability, and the cameras would only be viewable for live look-in, Gatekeeper’s system can easily be upgraded to record video footage with Gatekeeper’s Mobile Data Collector (MDC) for easy retrieval and review.

“This will be an aid to the drivers to even going around the corner, making sure that they don’t take the corner too sharply,” she explained. “And [it’s] one more tool to keep them feeling empowered to keep children safer.”

Turner added that school buses are the safest way to transport children to and from school, more so than any other means of transportation. However, she noted that personal vehicles are being equipped with upgraded technology and that same technology should be applied to school buses.

“That is because school buses are built, inside and out, to protect children, noting that while buses, particularly school buses, are among the safest modes of transportation available, there are opportunities for improved safety,” she said.

Related: As Camera Systems Evolve, IT Collaboration Necessary
Related: Rhode Island District Adds School Bus Video to Reduce Illegal Passing
Related: Transportation Technology Super Users Share Benefits of Working with IT Departments
Related: STN EXPO Panel Discusses Trends in School Bus Safety Technology

Yet questions about the requirement remain. Rich Bagdonas, vice president of business development for school bus contractor Switzer-CARTY Transportation Services, said he was “surprised” to hear the mandate when it was announced in February.

“Safety is paramount,” he said. “[Cameras are] a tool, but we can never have an over reliance on technology, because we still need to have the drivers trained very thoroughly. This is something that we will be able to add to enhance safety. But we always have to keep in mind that when we train drivers that we have to always have our eyes open on the road all the time, too. And we cannot just rely on the technology to provide the safest school ride possible.”

He explained that he doesn’t want the cameras to be a distraction to school bus drivers. For example, he fears they will watch the cameras and not the road.

He added that bus operators won’t see the full effect of the systems until September 2028. Currently, Switzer-CARTY does not have any external cameras on its buses but does have internal cameras on about 10 percent of its fleet based on customer specifications.

The company is in the process of testing external camera systems and installing a couple on school buses in anticipation of the new regulation, “just so we have a bit of a bit of an idea of what it is,” Bagdonas said.

Unlike the interior cameras and exterior stop-arm cameras that record footage, he noted the mandated systems will provide live feeds.

Camera Upkeep & Cost 

Bagdonas said there are still questions to be answered on the new regulation. For example, how much will the cameras cost to add to the buses, and what will maintenance of the systems look like, especially in the winter.

“Sometimes you get some dirt on the back of the [cameras], so we’re going to have to monitor and ensure proper maintenance of the camera systems to ensure the technology is working the way it’s intended,” he said. “And then also there’s going to be a cost component. We don’t know what that cost component is, but that cost component is going to be transferred to us in the cost of the bus, and then we’ll have to determine on how we can see about getting some compensation for this safety feature from our customers.”

All camera systems require ongoing maintenance, Turner said. She noted that while there should be a minimum annual inspection to ensure correct positioning and the connections are functional, they will also need to be cleaned, especially during winter months.

She explained that Gatekeeper’s camera systems are specifically designed and tested to perform reliably, even in harsh winter conditions. She recommended that during routine pre-trip inspections, drivers should quickly verify that camera lenses are clear of residue, snow, or dirt and clean them as needed to ensure optimal visibility.

Bagdonas said Switzer-Carty customers are aware of the new mandate and the company is engaging with stakeholders and bus operators on next steps. He added that because the mandate doesn’t take effect for another year and a half, there’s still time to work through the details.

The post Canada Becomes First Country to Mandate External School Bus Surveillance Feeds appeared first on School Transportation News.

A surveillance van or "critical response vehicle". (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin has issued a letter asking elected leaders in Milwaukee to temper the acquisition and use of surveillance technologies by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). On Thursday evening, the police department went before the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) to push for the use of facial recognition technology. This, along with the common council’s recent approval of drone usage by the MPD, has spurred the ACLU to call for a two-year pause on the adoption of new surveillance technologies, and craft frameworks to regulate the technology MPD already has “with meaningful opportunities for community input.” 

Although it acknowledges that many on the council and within MPD “care deeply about the safety and well-being of our city,” the ACLU’s letter also warns that “history has shown time and again, authoritarianism does not always arrive with flashing lights and villainous speeches — it often comes wrapped in routine procedure, paperwork, and people ‘just doing their jobs.’” 

“We are already seeing how surveillance technology is being weaponized in real time,” the ACLU continued, citing data-gathering, automatic license plate readers, artificial intelligence (AI), and other tools that are used to “target and detain individuals.” 

The MPD has long denied that it uses facial recognition technology. As part of an investigation into surveillance technologies which the department obtained ahead of the 2020 Democratic National Convention (DNC), Wisconsin Examiner reviewed “investment justification” records from the state’s Homeland Security Council which suggested that the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center — a homeland security-focused aspect of the MPD’s intel-gathering Fusion Center — utilized Clear facial recognition technology. It was described as a “mobile device” that would allow police to “conduct timely identification of individuals in the field to prevent terrorist attack.” 

By contrast, MPD PowerPoint presentations prepared for the April 17 FPC meeting openly advertise the use of facial recognition. The PowerPoint details two examples of arrests made using facial recognition software. One “case study” from March 2024 involved a fatal gun violence incident where the suspects fled. The PowerPoint said that they were later seen at a gas station, and that facial recognition software provided leads to both suspects. Noting that “facial recognition results are advisory in nature and are to be treated as investigative leads only,” the PowerPoint states that a Department of Corrections agent confirmed the software’s results, leading to arrests the next morning. 

One of the PowerPoint slides shows in-custody photographs of the arrested men above pictures of them masked in a gas station. The slides showed that the facial recognition software had a “similarity” rating of 99.7% for one man, and 98.1% for another. Both men are waiting for a trial. The other case study focused on a sexual assault incident involving a gun. Like the other example, surveillance footage of the suspect from a gas station helped lead to the arrest. MPD sent out a facial recognition request to local agencies. It was answered by the Wauwatosa Police Department, which returned two pictures of the same individual. The pictures had similarity ratings of 99.1% and 98.9% respectively. The arrested man was sentenced to 20 years in prison. 

The PowerPoint presentation lists 14 cases from the North and South Sides of Milwaukee. It states that MPD “would be diligent in balancing the need for effective, accurate investigations and the need to respect the privacy of others,” and that facial recognition does not establish probable cause to arrest someone or obtain a warrant. “It may generate investigative leads through a combination of automated biometric comparisons and human analysis,” the PowerPoint states. “Corroborating information must be developed through additional investigation.” 

A PowerPoint presentation detailing the Milwaukee PD’s plans for facial recognition software.

MPD has reviewed procedures for the technology’s use nationwide, and stated that “oversight of the system will consist of an audit report showing information requested, accessed, searched, or disseminated.” All requests for facial recognition must be approved by a supervisor, and the department will keep a log of each search and the type of crime involved. Biometrica is the chosen facial recognition vendor. The PowerPoint states that the company has worked with the NAACP and the ACLU to provide anti-bias training for users of the software. 

The reassurances, however, do little to quell the concerns of privacy advocates. In their letter to the MPD and common council, the ACLU of Wisconsin highlighted ongoing immigrant roundups by  the Trump administration, and the deportation of Milwaukee residents to a notorious maximum security terrorism prison in El Salvador. “It is being used to monitor and prosecute political protesters, people seeking reproductive health care, LGBTQ+ individuals, and doctors trying to provide care,” the letter states. “These are not projections — these are present-day realities carried out by bad actors within the federal government and local jurisdictions.” 

The ACLU letter warns, “while we trust that our local leaders and police officers have good intentions, history reminds us how quickly larger systems can override those intentions.” 

In recent years MPD has expanded its network of surveillance cameras and other activities such as its phone surveillance operations remain shrouded in secrecy. MPD has also built up its social media surveillance footprint using AI-powered software, after downplaying the very existence of those activities in years past. 

“Data collected in Milwaukee does not stay in Milwaukee,” the ACLU states. “Once it enters a federal pipeline, it can be accessed, shared, and used in ways we cannot predict — or stop. That’s why now, more than ever, we must choose restraint. The rule of law at the federal level is unraveling before our eyes.”

The same set of concerns came up during a March 20 FPC meeting, where commissioners discussed the MPD’s use of drones and facial recognition technology. Police officials claimed that complaints about law enforcement using drones lagged behind the rate of agencies acquiring the technology, suggesting that the public approves. Police officials said that MPD’s “Airborne Assessment Team,” which is attached to the department’s Specialized Patrol Division, would help increase situational awareness, de-escalate dangerous situations, aid search-and-rescue, help manage major events and offer unique opportunities to “positively engage” with the community. In protest situations, drones would allow MPD to monitor an area while not physically placing officers nearby, whose presence could trigger an escalation among the protest crowd. 

MPD said that its drones do not have facial recognition capabilities. Still, the growth of MPD’s surveillance powers have worried some community members. Commissioner Bree Spencer said during the meeting that it would be nice for a community-based tech advisory board to be established to help review MPD’s surveillance requests. Spencer said that nationwide and historically, it’s not unheard-of for law enforcement surveillance programs to get out of hand. 

“I get it for water rescue, I’m very worried about things like protests,” said Spencer. “I think for very good reason. Our federal government is doing some very funky things right now with protesters. So I get what you’re saying, and I see in the SOP that you’re like, ‘We’re not going to do that.’ I don’t know if that’s sufficient in terms of a protection, particularly for people who are skeptical about the use of these technologies.”

Police officials said that drones are a crowd management tool, and that during the Republican National Convention (RNC) they helped monitor protest movements to ensure opposing groups didn’t come into contact with one another. Spencer reiterated, “I think I just worry about the cost to individual civil rights and, like, how that’s going to just keep growing in our society…I wish the public had more input into whether or not the use of this type of technology is happening here. Talking to the community is not the same as letting them have a decision about whether or not they want drones in their city being run by police.” 

MPD spokespeople said the department based its drone usage procedures on best practice guidance from the ACLU, and that the department is “very late” to the drone game. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, for example, officially announced its drone program in 2021. 

Ahead of the DNC nearly five years ago, the MPD acquired large white vans called “critical response vehicles”, which are also attached to the Specialized Patrol Division and came equipped with their own tethered aerial drones. Wisconsin Examiner found that the sheriff’s drones were used to monitor police accountability protests, with the number of flights dropping significantly once the protests subsided. 

In its letter Thursday, the ACLU stressed that police abuse of surveillance “is not ancient history” but rather “it’s living memory for many in our city.” Some may remember the reign of police chief Harold Breier, who surveilled civil rights activists, LGBTQ+ communities, and Black Milwaukeeans. “And those who carried out that surveillance often believed they were ‘just doing their jobs.’” The ACLU’s letter questions what a personality like Chief Breier would do with today’s surveillance powers. 

“We’re not calling for a ban,” the letter states. Instead, the ACLU calls for a  two-year pause on acquiring new surveillance technologies, especially facial recognition technology, “while we assess the potential risks.” In the meantime, the letter urges city leaders to “pass a framework for regulating existing surveillance technology, such as adopting a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance to bring accountability to these decisions before it’s too late.”

The Wauwatosa Police Department (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Since 2022, the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD) has operated under new, very specific guidelines on how intelligence is collected and shared. Developing a policy involved reflection, clarification and modernization for the police department. Prior to its creation, a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Wisconsin Examiner, no formal intelligence gathering policy existed at Tosa PD. 

By establishing clear standards, WPD aims to “bring about an equitable balance between the civil rights and liberties of citizens and the needs of law enforcement to collect and disseminate Criminal Intelligence on the conduct of persons and groups who may be planning, engaged in, or about to be engaged in criminal activity,” the policy states. Versions of the policy, as well as emails detailing its creation, were obtained by Wisconsin Examiner through open records requests.

The eight-page policy defines the difference between “information” and “criminal intelligence,” outlines appropriate channels for sharing that information, and establishes clear boundaries protecting individuals and groups. “Information” is defined as “raw unprocessed data that is unverified and unevaluated,” and only becomes “intelligence” once it’s been “systematically planned, collected, analyzed, and disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor potential criminal activity for public safety purposes,” according to the policy. 

It stresses that such efforts must meet the threshold of “reasonable suspicion,” where a sworn law enforcement officer or investigator believes there is a “reasonable possibility” that a person or group is involved in “a definable criminal activity or enterprise.” Individuals or groups which become the focus of WPD’s intel-gathering activities must be those suspected of being involved in the planning, financing or organization of criminal acts, those suspected of being involved in criminal acts with “known or suspected crime figures,” or be the victims of those acts. 

The policy highlights that intelligence may not be gathered on individuals or groups based solely on:

• An individual or group’s support of “unpopular causes”
• Any membership of a protected class including race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, physical or mental disabilities, veteran status, genetic information or citizenship
• Political affiliations
• “Non-criminal personal habits” 

Any information gathered from confidential sources or electronic surveillance devices “shall be performed in a legally acceptable manner and in accordance with procedures,” the policy states. The policy also requires periodic review of intelligence by appropriate WPD staff to ensure the information is accurate, current, and remains relevant to the department’s goals. If it’s not, the policy states, the information should be purged. 

Lessons learned, and a new day

The intelligence policy was created with input from several key personnel within WPD including Lt. Joseph Roy, crime analyst Dominick Ratkowski, and Capt. Shane Wrucke. WPD Chief James MacGillis — who was formerly a Milwaukee PD drug intelligence and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) officer — also had input in crafting the policy.

A WPD spokesperson wrote in an email statement that the city’s Police and Fire Commission, which oversees appointments, promotions and discipline of police and fire personnel, was not involved in establishing the policy. In April 2024, Ratkowski shared a final draft of the policy with Robert Bechtold, from the Madison Police Department. “Thanks for the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure],” emailed Bechtold, who was apparently looking for guidance on how to create such a policy. “I’m not looking forward to us building one,” he added. The Madison Police Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Roy, Ratkowski, and Wrucke all have ties to WPD’s investigative division. Roy supervised the division’s dayshift and also serves as commander of the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which focuses on officer-involved shootings and deaths. Ratkowski has worked at WPD since 2018, and was hired as the department’s first ever civilian crime analyst. Wrucke, like Roy, has past ties to both MAIT and WPD’s Special Operations Group (SOG), which focuses on covert surveillance, accessing phones, and drug investigations.

A WPD spokesperson explained in an email statement that the intel policy was created “to incorporate lessons learned, enhance transparency, and provide clear guidelines for intelligence gathering.” Those lessons likely stemmed from the protests of 2020, and the decisions made by investigators when WPD was still headed by former Chief Barry Weber. 

Following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, marches against police abuse began in Milwaukee and Wauwatosa, where a former police officer had killed three people over a five-year period. Wauwatosa experienced months of daily non-violent protests which occasionally ended in standoffs with officers. In October 2020, Wauwatosa declared a curfew after the district attorney’s office announced that officer Joseph Mensah wouldn’t be charged in his third fatal shooting. Protesters were confronted by riot police, the National Guard and militarized federal law enforcement during the curfew. 

Journalists, protesters and lawyers later learned that WPD had created a list of nearly 200 people during the summer of protest. Ratkowski had called it a “target list” in an email to assisting agencies. WPD publicly stated that the list — which included dozens of protesters, members of the Cole family, their attorneys, elected officials, and the author of this story — included  witnesses, victims and  suspects in possible crimes that occurred at the protests. 

Civil lawsuits revealed more about use of the list under Weber, who retired in 2021. Ratkowski in depositions explained that he began creating the list around June 2020, after Capt. Luke Vetter asked him to begin identifying active participants in the protests. Ratkowski gathered information from confidential law enforcement databases with access to drivers license information, home addresses, arrest records, and more. He combed social media accounts on Facebook and Tinder, sometimes using fake Facebook accounts registered as “confidential informants.”

Simply being tagged in a protest-related social media post could get someone on the list, Ratkowski said in a deposition. He agreed with attorneys when asked whether “mere affiliation with a protest” was enough, and confirmed that threatening violence or committing a crime was not required. Ratkowski said that if a superior asked him to make a list of every member of the Socialist Party he would, “because I would assume that he [Capt. Vetter] would have asked me to do something that wasn’t useless.” The attorney questioning Ratkowski responded, “I’m not asking whether it’s useful or useless, I’m asking whether it’s constitutional or not,” to which Ratkowski replied, “I can’t make that determination.” 

The federal lawsuit eventually went to trial, where a jury ruled that WPD had not violated specific privacy laws related to obtaining and sharing drivers license information. 

In an emailed statement, WPD said that “a key objective” of the new intelligence policy “was to clearly define the distinction between information and intelligence, ensuring officers understand when data becomes actionable. It applies to all WPD staff involved in intelligence creation and upholds protections against intelligence gathering based on legally protected characteristics.” The department added that, “though journalists are not explicitly mentioned, the department remains committed to safeguarding First Amendment rights for all individuals. Above all, the Wauwatosa Police Department prioritizes transparency and strengthening trust within the community.”